![](https://i2.wp.com/www.tanjak.my/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Khalwat.png?resize=200%2C200)
DANIAL ARIFF SHAARI, in the fourth and final part of his ‘Liberals’ series, urges that interference by non Muslims in Islamic matters has got to stop
The nonsensical claim that our religious authorities skodeng (go around spying on) people is untrue as otherwise the officer squads will be spread too thin — logically speaking.
They would not go to a particular location without a genuine complaint with authentic details provided of the suspected khalwat or illicit close proximity. There is actually a proper system for reporting syariah crimes, e.g. hotline Jais.
Their criticism is as if the liberals are saying — Why not challenge the syariah criminal justice system?
Well, let it be known to the libs that Muslims take exception to their inteference in our religious affairs.
One example illustrating this ‘attack’ Islam phenomenon can be mined from a news item titled ‘Lawyer: Muslims can challenge khalwat offence‘ published in the Free Malaysia Today portal on 7 Dec 2016.
I am saddened by the misperceptions that the pathetic FMT, together with a few other liberal media outlets, have been disseminating to the non-Muslim communities.
Additionally, some of these ‘concerned’ (read: interfering) non Muslims go to the extent of claiming that syariah criminal offences should not even exist in the first place alongside civil offences enumerated under the Penal Code.
FYI: Khalwat is considered a crime by Muslims
Recently, without regard to our constitutional framework and the division of federal and state powers, FMT – a professionally impaired media – quoted a statement on Islam enforcement by a civil lawyer.
FMT was reportedly told by the civil (non-Muslim) lawyer that performing duties under the state enactment for syariah criminal offences e.g. khalwat, following a tip-off, is open to a legal challenge in a civil court.
On a separate note, the following claim below is moreover attributed by FMT to retired Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram in its article cited above:
“How can it be when a non-Muslim does ‘something’, it is not an offence and yet if a Muslim does ‘something’, it becomes an offence. That cannot be correct.”
FMT furthermore quoted lawyer G. Subramaniam Nair as lamenting that once a civil servant were to be found guilty by the Syariah Court, the employer’s disciplinary board could take action against the culprit.
Subramaniam said:
“In the past, action was only taken if one was guilty of a criminal offence, but now it has been extended to offences against the religion.”
I am deeply concerned by such statements emanating from non-Muslim legal practitioners who are nonetheless unqualified in syariah law.
![](https://i0.wp.com/www.tanjak.my/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/image-4.jpeg?resize=150%2C246)
Non Muslim interference in implementation of Islam unwarranted
In the ninth schedule of the federal constitution, under the state list (List II), it clearly states:
“…creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List…”
Our constitution itself prescribes the power to define khalwat or any other acts which go against the teaching of Islam as syariah criminal offences.
Therefore, the duties performed – such as the khalwat raids – shall not be undermined by the liberal challenge to the authority of Muslim enforcement agencies.
Our religious authorities, i.e. the various state Islamic departments, are rightfully given power under the constitution and the state enactments to impose compliance by Muslims.
There is no issue of ultra vires either as khalwat – which is obviously a subject matter that has been codified as a syariah offence – falls well within the purview of state jurisdiction and not federal.
![](https://i0.wp.com/www.tanjak.my/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/image-8.jpeg?resize=400%2C299)
LGBTWXYZ ok too?
FMT then goes on to report the non-Muslim civil lawyer’s assertion that a khalwat raid is an act of invasion of privacy. This somehow corroborates a similar stance by the group of “eminent” Malaysians known as G25.
Back in mid-2015, FMT reported with regard to the G25 liberals:
“The laws on khalwat (close proximity) in the country’s Syariah judiciary system are an insult to Islam’s stance on the sanctity of people’s privacy, according to G25 coordinator Noor Farida Ariffin.”
Farida once more, towards end-2015, reiterated the G25 stand against criminalizing khalwat. See, ‘G25: Khalwat a ’personal sin’, not a crime‘ in FMT (7 Dec 2015).
Before I provide my response, I wish to ask the proponents of this supposed right to privacy on how they draw the line between the right to privacy of drug dealers in a budget hotel room and the right to privacy of an unmarried Muslim couple in the next room.
Can the drug dealers be entitled to claim invasion of their privacy when the police come raiding their supposed ‘private’ space?
And while we’re on the issue of drawing boundaries, what about the liberals’ attempt to recognize LGBT rights? They want to permit gays the choice “to be whoever they want to be”.
By the same token, can prostitutes also claim their right to autonomy and choose be whoever they want to be too?
![](https://i2.wp.com/www.tanjak.my/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/image-9.jpeg?resize=400%2C237)
Amar makruf nahi mungkar
Going back to Farida’s statement, it is nothing less than a misperception of Islam as a way of life.
Trotting out her ‘sanctity of people’s privacy’ excuse hints at a complete disregard to the other parts of Islamic teachings urging Muslims to prevent bad deeds and sins.
Khalwat, which is a syariah criminal offence, is one of the bad deeds and a door to commission of bigger sins.
I wish to ask Farida and her fellow G25 members if they would morally consent/close an eye to zina (adultery) if they believe religious authorities are not supposed to intervene or prevent such undesirable occurrences.
Would they prefer instead the religious authorities to go around checking on mosque toilets as suggested by Zaid Ibrahim?
But for the sake of questioning syariah apparently, the liberals just do not care about legal accuracy.
![](https://i0.wp.com/www.tanjak.my/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/hannahyeoh-tolakusul.jpg?resize=640%2C601)
I repeat: M’sia is not a secular country!
Another ludicrous accusation is that Malaysia is a secular country and our nation’s supposed secular nature was decided in the case of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor.
It is important to note that if one reads through the details of the judgment for that particular case, the court never declared Malaysia as a secular country.
The judgment merely stated that the legal system (in existence during that time) was of secular nature.
Furthermore, claiming Malaysia is a secular country – when its constitution clearly provides recognition of Islam as the religion of the Federation – goes against the very concept of secularism itself.
See the constitutions of the United States or India for a comparison. Both do not recognize any one religion as the religion of the their republics, and both explicitly state that the republic is secular.
May I ask if FMT is only interested in pursuing the agenda of its liberal proxies? It does seem to us Muslims as if they are hellbent on undermining the sanctity of Islam, of Malaysian religious institutions and our Islamic authorities.
Just like how they ridicule Islamic scholars on certain views, the liberal media endlessly question the authority of syariah courts and even decry the RUU355 amendment.
Are they now bold enough to challenge the very existence of syariah criminal justice system which has been beautifully embodied in our constitution?
If they are, they need to be stopped!
Danial Ariff Shaari is a lawyer and activist
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.